"Usually one to attack the basket, shooting just 30% for the season at the 3 point line, he his 3 of 5 from behind the arc in the first quarter, and drives by Larry Johnson twice for two layups, and manages to get fouled twice on a pumpfake and an attack to the basket, earning him two trips to the line, where he goes 4/4."

The 3s' aren't backed by anything. Hill took 0.4 3's a game at 30% and now he shoots five in the first quarter alone and hits 60%. Hill also gets at least 9 touches in the first, which isn't backed by the game plan or his season stats.

You want to argue Hill blows by LJ and lights him up, even if he did, he wouldn't be taking five 3's, hitting three of them, or seeing the ball for nine touches in the first.

You want to argue Candy's ballot should be allowed ok, then I allow the coaches ballot as well. Still a tie.

More votes from the original judges sure, but L4L didn't vote. If he had we wouldn't be in this mess. That's what screws all of this up. Then add that two of the votes for you had some serious problems imo. Would you have been ok with a judges writeup that had Alvin Robertson hitting 3 of 5 3's in the first?

That said, I'm not calling for the result to be changed. Aabs had a great plan. No shame in losing. But the logic used to dismiss a key vote has plenty of holes in it because it uses a Hollinger approach instead of more obvious data of matchups.

A draw would have made sense, not over-analyzing votes to see what fit the criteria. I could easily argue I should have won, being that I actually had more votes from the original judges.

A look at Grant Hill blowing by defenders, Pippen and MJ included, but he couldn't get by a PF like LJ? Please.

I'm sorry Cleva, but you are seeing this through your own agenda. Sure Grant Hill was quicker than LJ. Of course LJ would have some trouble guarding Hill on the perimeter. Please don't ignore Hakeem and JO waiting for him at the hoop. On the other side you seem to ignore that Hill now has to deal with prime LJ. The man was a beast. He would simply overwhelm Hill. The mismatch is greater against you than it is for you.

Plus, from how I saw your write up, you loaded waaaay too much responsibility on Hill's shoulders.

Hill is your primary ballhandler bringing the ball up all game against Alvin Robertson who would make him work.

Hill is your primary playmaker since you have Sugar on the bench half the game.

Hill has to guard LJ which he simply can't do.

Hill is listed ABOVE MJ as an offensive option and is carrying 30% of your scoring load.

Hill is playing 40 minutes which means he is not able to rest from any of the above.

In my humble opinion you put all your eggs in Hill's basket. Big mistake and simply bad coaching. I think in an all time game you could stretch and put that much responsibility for the win on Jordan's shoulders, but even he would strain to carry that much against Barcelona's great defenders...but Grant Hill?!? Please.

This is sticking with me so I decided to do some research beyond the stat sheet.

Starting at beginning

1991 NCAA Final Four. Year before UNLV killed Duke in the NC game. This year, Grant was a freshman and helped lead Duke to the upset win - even Coach K credits that to Hill. LJ wasn't guarding him, a better defender Augmon was.

In 94-95, LJ was exclusively at PF. He never guarded Grant Hill at all. Hersey Hawkins, Scott Burrell, and Dell Curry were the swingmen, with Zo backing them up.

Going back to 92-93 - Hill wasn't even in the league yet. LJ was, again playing PF. Johnny Newman and Kendall Gill was the SG/SF on that team with Zo backing him up.

The year I used for Grant Hill was 96-97 at his best where the MJ comparisons were valid.

LJ was quick - yes against PFs. Like LO is quick against PFs. But he was no SF and never played there. So the premise that he shut down Grant Hill is fallacy from the beginning because he never would have guarded Hill and the defenders who did had Zo backing them up with Zo not worried about any Detroit big man.

Obviously, judging is subjective but to point to stats alone is foolish. You gotta check the matchups. Sure, MJ/Penny was sometimes matched up but it was mostly Nick Anderson on MJ, Pippen on Penny.

With that evidence, its very reasonable, in fact likely, that LJ wasn't keeping up with Hill and on a team where everyone else has to be respected, Hill could and would easily go off on LJ in iso because LJ couldn't guard SFs.

Therefore, one easily would assume that Candy Cane's argument was correct and I get the W, despite the commish not originally seeing it that way.

You picked Hill 96-97 - LJ was with the Knicks. Starting front court, Ewing, Oakley, Johnson -
You gonna tell us Oakley was the SF?
It was strictly Hill vs LJ in 96-97 and the numbers speak for themselves
So the only reference we can use of Hill vs LJ head to head in stats is that year. Taking into account 92 LJ was far more quicker and more explosive than 96-97 LJ, we can all draw our own conclusion on how that would have looked..._________________Want Some Pancakes?

Complaining is ok, it's valid to say Hill may have put up good numbers on LJ, but not 3-5 from 3 in the first. LJ vs. Hill in 96-97 Hill had 20 points on .435 shooting in 3 games, took one 3 shot. Very similar numbers in 94-95, 19 on 44%. So Hill has success, but not 17 points in the first success.

It is a crazy way to go out and it looks very subjective, but with L4L not voting there was no way to keep it objective and on the tracks. Sorry about that, it is what it is.

Cleva, you've gone tunnel vision here. All your attention is on how much Hill would score on LJ. Jamas' post makes the point. Hill would score, but to expect him to score over 20 is fantasy like Candy indulged in.

On the other side you haven't addressed how in the world you think Hill could guard LJ in his prime beast days.

Plus keep the bigger picture in view.

Bigger picture = you limited MJ to a secondary option in your plan. You did not stop Hakeem who is Aabs primary option. Ralph Sampson is in major foul trouble all game long. You don't have a single backup Big to stop the bleeding. You did not stop Penny who is his second option because you have Derek Freaking Harper guarding him most of the time.

You had a great run, but honestly, Barcelona wins this game based upon the plans submitted.

You had a great run, but honestly, Barcelona wins this game based upon the plans submitted.

I wasn't basing my argument on gameplan - I was basing it on the voting process.

ATL is about convincing judges your team/plan works against the competition. 6 original judges, one holding the tiebreaker. 1 doesn't show up. Of remaining judges, 3 voted for me, 2 (including tiebreaker didn't).

Logic tells me that the winner of the voting process, regardless of how they made the conclusion, should win.

I don't believe a poll of owners, where one only votes, is accurate - regardless if it went to me as well.

Gameplan only became a factor when 1 of the 5 original judges who made a decision, who was deemed worthy to be a judge originally, was rulled null because the commish didn't like the justificantion and how that particular judge, saw the matchup. It basically says that since the commish didn't like how the judge saw it, that he didn't count anymore.

Sky is a friend of mine and he knows this isn't personal at all. The fundaments of how it was chosen was messed up.

If I was outvoted, regardless of reasoning, then fine. Nothing I can do. If most of the owners casted their vote and again I lost, even on the tiebreaker - again, nothing I can say or do. But I won the vote of the orginal judges yet I still lost. That's perplexing to me.

Last edited by 2Cleva on Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:56 am; edited 1 time in total

After your first round game where a judge made a call that went specifically against the stats and writeup provided (McHale vs. Sampson head to head) I was forced to change the rules to prevent that from happening again. imo that happened again here. A player taking 0.4 3's per game at 30% goes 3-5 from downtown? In the first quarter? No more credible than Alvin doing that.

If a judge indeed had Alvin doing that and it decided the championship you would have been livid. And you would have been absolutely right to feel that way. Put those shoes on your feet and walk around a little bit and you'll understand why I did what I did.

I wanted six judges, we didn't get that. I wanted judges decisions that followed the game plans and the statboxes, we didn't get that either. Which leaves me with these choices.

Congrats on a well played league everyone. Sorry to end like this Cleve. If the shoe was on the other foot, I would probably protest too, but looking at it unbiased, Sky was correct. This helps protect the integrity of our game. Judges shouldn't judge if they don't know the players. I mean if you havent heard of a player DO YOUR RESEARCH. Just to totally dismiss a player because he weighs 250 lbs is just inane drivel. Thanks for putting this together Sky, I have learned so much the past few years. I remember first year taking over a team. Then last year with a fearsome team only to run into Sky. I should have hidden the Pamplona Offense til I played your team. A Time to gameplan againts Pamplona for Sky is like giving prime Mike Tyson, Gerry Cooney to fight.